But seriously . . . atheism?

[eques]

The "limited omnipotence" deity sounds a lot more plausible than all-powerful deity theory.  I don't see why we need God to be omnipotent, or even 100% benevolent.  Or rather, why some insist with so little evidence that he MUST be those things.

Only because that's what the prevailing doctrine of God once was so many years ago, in the earlier years of theology.  Some people out there have this hang-up about "old" things being better (just like others have similar hang-ups about "new" things).

It's like "the good old days" and "latest and greatest."  The only thing necessarily true about those expressions are the words "old" and "latest."

[Minsk]

The "limited omnipotence" deity sounds a lot more plausible than all-powerful deity theory.  I don't see why we need God to be omnipotent, or even 100% benevolent.  Or rather, why some insist with so little evidence that he MUST be those things.

One might as well ask why a believe has unquestioning faith in the existence of a particular God in the first place... It's why, IMO, faith is not worth debating  beyond trying to understand a believer's motivation. At some point the answer is going to be "it's the truth because I believe it"

Eques -- Actually seems to me that a single abstract omnipotent deity is a fairly recent construct. Running back through the elder faiths I know about, I can't think of a single one which adopts a deity that is omnipotent and will act on it.

[Rocketman]

The "limited omnipotence" deity sounds a lot more plausible than all-powerful deity theory.  I don't see why we need God to be omnipotent, or even 100% benevolent.  Or rather, why some insist with so little evidence that he MUST be those things.

One might as well ask why a believe has unquestioning faith in the existence of a particular God in the first place... It's why, IMO, faith is not worth debating  beyond trying to understand a believer's motivation. At some point the answer is going to be "it's the truth because I believe it"

But when only strong theists and atheists speak out about their views, the sensible middle ground can easily be lost -- that's what I think makes it worth debating.  There are some very interesting ideas about religion that most people have simply never been exposed to.

Eques -- Actually seems to me that a single abstract omnipotent deity is a fairly recent construct. Running back through the elder faiths I know about, I can't think of a single one which adopts a deity that is omnipotent and will act on it.

The Lord hath obviously consolidated a lot of power since he was just God of the Hebrews.   

[Minsk]

the sensible middle ground

Afraid that's a contradiction in terms. The "middle ground" is just a diplomatic way of saying "people who live like atheists but keep claiming to believe in, or 'accept the possibility of' something else".

But on to the less pejorative part, I should have drawn a distinction between talking about religion and debating their core faith. So while I certainly see the point of chipping at the branches, walking up and kicking the trunk is IMO a waste. (See also, the reactions to paragraph 1 )

[Rocketman]

Afraid that's a contradiction in terms.

I speak out against revealed religions because I believe they have rotten effects on society and because they distract from the natural religion, deism, which does not require massive leaps of faith and encourages the use of reason.  I think religious freethinking in general is a good thing -- it's useful to have diversity of thought in the marketplace of ideas.

There is no contradiction in this position.  There only appears to be a contradiction because strong theism is the only brand of theism anybody talks about much these days, and because you're conflating a religious distinction with a moral one -- the atheists I know live much like the Christians I know, except for Sunday mornings. 

[Minsk]

you're conflating a religious distinction with a moral one -- the atheists I know live much like the Christians I know, except for Sunday mornings.

Not so much -- I'm contrasting "deriving all expectations from the observable behavior of reality" with "deriving almost all...". Most people, as you rightly observe, treat things objectively until confronted with God (or church, or family, or state). Then all thought, reason and sensibility goes out the window in favor of whatever baggage they brought to the table.

But for some reason almost all of them are unicorn deniers. And don't even try to get a marketplace of ideas started regarding what the dwarves in the center of the earth use to make their tea. Oh the agnostics will mouth something about "anything being possible", but they'll never carry enough sugar cubes.

[Russell Kanning]

The "limited omnipotence" deity sounds a lot more plausible than all-powerful deity theory.  I don't see why we need God to be omnipotent, or even 100% benevolent.  Or rather, why some insist with so little evidence that he MUST be those things.

God could exist ... and be mean and spiteful. He could actually be talking to George the Decider.

[MaineShark]

You can word it however you like, Joe
But it would become malevolent the minute
it stops being words on a screen.

No, it would be lacking in benevolence.  A lack of good is not the same as evil.

Imagine that Russell gets his wish and NH seceeds, but the Feds march in with troops.  Now, the two sides meet for the first time on the field of battle, and Russell runs out and starts talking to the Federal troops, explaining the wrongness of their actions.  They have three choices: they can join our cause (good), refuse to fight and leave us be (neutral), or mow Russell down in a hail of machinegun-fire and charge against us (evil).  I think most of us (particularly Russell, in this example!) would agree that there's a world of difference between evil and neutrality.

No one can prove a negative.  That's an ancient basic given--like Occam's Razor.

Occam's Razor isn't a given.  It's a rule of thumb that only applies some of the time.

And we all take things on faith every day, i.e., walking onto a floor shows our faith that it won't collapse or taking a deep breath of fresh air in the woods without fearing we'll inhale mustard gas.

No, that's not faith.  That's belief, based on rational examination of observable evidence.  Only one floor has ever collapsed under me, among the uncountable number of steps I have taken across floors in my life, so it is ovewhelmingly probably that I can trust any given floor that appears sound.  However, the possibility exists that an otherwise-sound-looking floor can be rotten underneath, and I could fall through it.  If that possibility didn't exist, I wouldn't have broken my leg years ago.

As to the matter of atheism, however, I don't have have to prove or disprove anything because I'm not contending that my universe is ruled by an invisible, inaudible, omnipotent being who loves me and listens to me but never talks back except to the occasional poor soul who is generally institutionalized after revealing his conversations.

It is the theists who must prove what they posit.  I am claiming nothing, and I am believing nothing, until they prove it.  (And they have to prove it without using the "Word of God" from a God they have not proved.)

If you actually claim nothing, then you are an agnostic.  If you call yourself an atheist, then you have already made a specific claim, and an unprovable one, at that.

The "limited omnipotence" deity sounds a lot more plausible than all-powerful deity theory.  I don't see why we need God to be omnipotent, or even 100% benevolent.  Or rather, why some insist with so little evidence that he MUST be those things.

Indeed.  That's why I always find the "problem of evil" so amusing.  It really only applies to monotheistic religions.  Crazy pagans like me have no need to worry about such things, since the idea of an omnipotent god just strikes me as silly.

Joe

[Caleb]

Retreating into arbitrary faith generally convinces me to find a more rational target.

What with the Colts and all, I temporarily lost my combativeness.  But I can't let this go without a comment. 

How is it that if a theist acknowledges that he doesn't have a complete answer to a problem, he is retreating into arbitrary faith ...

Whereas when an atheist cannot account for the origin of either existence or consciousness, it is considered reasonable for him to maintain his belief in materialism?

[Caleb]

The "limited omnipotence" deity sounds a lot more plausible than all-powerful deity theory.  I don't see why we need God to be omnipotent, or even 100% benevolent.  Or rather, why some insist with so little evidence that he MUST be those things.

From previous discussions, I know that you are somewhat familiar with process thought.  But this is where I deviate somewhat from Whitehead's philosophy.  It seems to me that if God is to retain any explanative power, he must transcend time.  I do not see how a God which exists within time is capable of doing so, and hence space/time and matter/energy remain unexplained mysteries if God does not transcend them.

But then again, a transcendent God is not necessarily an omnipotent one.  I tend to think that within this universe, God must work within a process.  He probably can physically accomplish most anything he wants to accomplish, but he doesn't do so by speaking it or willing it into being, he exerts a creative influence.  Like the artist relies on the brush stroke, God too uses a process, and it must be so if the concept of "causation" is to have any real meaning that we can wrap our minds around.  If God wants this and such to happen, he has to take a certain course of action, which will have its own consequences.

I'm not sure that the reach or limit of God's ultimate power is within our grasp, because we're not even completely sure what we're describing, let alone how God interacts with it.

[KurtDaBear]

And we all take things on faith every day, i.e., walking onto a floor shows our faith that it won't collapse or taking a deep breath of fresh air in the woods without fearing we'll inhale mustard gas.

No, that's not faith.  That's belief, based on rational examination of observable evidence.  Only one floor has ever collapsed under me, among the uncountable number of steps I have taken across floors in my life, so it is ovewhelmingly probably that I can trust any given floor that appears sound.  However, the possibility exists that an otherwise-sound-looking floor can be rotten underneath, and I could fall through it.  If that possibility didn't exist, I wouldn't have broken my leg years ago.

As to the matter of atheism, however, I don't have have to prove or disprove anything because I'm not contending that my universe is ruled by an invisible, inaudible, omnipotent being who loves me and listens to me but never talks back except to the occasional poor soul who is generally institutionalized after revealing his conversations.

It is the theists who must prove what they posit.  I am claiming nothing, and I am believing nothing, until they prove it.  (And they have to prove it without using the "Word of God" from a God they have not proved.)

If you actually claim nothing, then you are an agnostic.  If you call yourself an atheist, then you have already made a specific claim, and an unprovable one, at that.

[

If you walk on the floor without having crawled under it to inspect the joists, beams and boards; it's a belief based on faith, not fact.  That's where the faith comes in.

I am an a - theist in that I'm against the theists because they are claiming things they cannot prove.  It is not incumbent upon me to prove anything.  And as I said earlier, you cannot prove a negative. 

But if this were a civil trial, and I had to arrive at a verdict based on a "preponderance of evidence," it would come down on the side of no god.  That's not a matter of faith in my belief; it's a lack of faith in the plaintiffs' case.  I'm merely defending myself against the fraud they seek to perpetrate.

[Minsk]

Retreating into arbitrary faith generally convinces me to find a more rational target.

What with the Colts and all, I temporarily lost my combativeness.  But I can't let this go without a comment. 

How is it that if a theist acknowledges that he doesn't have a complete answer to a problem, he is retreating into arbitrary faith ...

Whereas when an atheist cannot account for the origin of either existence or consciousness, it is considered reasonable for him to maintain his belief in materialism?

"I live most of my life based on deriving rules from the observable behavior of reality, but portions of reality that have not been explained to my satisfaction absolutely must be the work of the particular deity(ies) I have chosen to believe in."

Or, in the particular case of existence --
"I don't know, but my God absolutely and unquestionably did it through some supernatural means."
"I don't know, but odds are it happened through and because of the same processes we can observe today."

Obviously not likely to change your mind, but that's hopefully enough of my thought process to understand what I'm designating as "absolute faith". And to be precise: I deny you any claim of rationality or sensibility in asserting existence independent of observable reality, or in a particular choice of deity(ies).

Might you be right? Sure. At about the same level of likelihood as the Hindi, Egyptians, Norse, Romans, various native-American tribes, Scientologists, Matrix, Mormons, that the teaparty-dwarves borrowed my house keys this morning, or that gravity will suddenly cease to exist as I walk to work tomorrow. And because I'm not packing either a grappling hook or a tea cozy, I'm an atheist

-- And just out of equal opportunity bashing:
"I don't know, odds are it happened through the same processes we can observe today, but my God absolutely and unquestionably exists."
"I don't know, really, have no clue if reality even exists at all."

<edit>I'll probably bow out unless something really strikes my fancy. The review board says I'm either too disagreeable, too aggressive, or too inflammatory in these topics. Blame my discussion style on comp.lang.c -- in person I didn't even get blacklisted by the Jehovah's until after a few chats.</edit>

[Michael Fisher]

I'm at the place where I sort of figure that the damage necessary to destroy the evil violently would probably cause more harm than the passive methods God uses.

   Jesus presented another parable to them, saying, "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field. But while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went away. But when the wheat sprouted and bore grain, then the tares became evident also.
   The slaves of the landowner came and said to him, 'Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?' And he said to them, 'An enemy has done this!' The slaves said to him, 'Do you want us, then, to go and gather them up?' But he said, 'No; for while you are gathering up the tares, you may uproot the wheat with them.
   'Allow both to grow together until the harvest; and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, "First gather up the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them up; but gather the wheat into my barn."'"

-Matthew 13:24-30

[Caleb]

Retreating into arbitrary faith generally convinces me to find a more rational target.

What with the Colts and all, I temporarily lost my combativeness.  But I can't let this go without a comment. 

How is it that if a theist acknowledges that he doesn't have a complete answer to a problem, he is retreating into arbitrary faith ...

Whereas when an atheist cannot account for the origin of either existence or consciousness, it is considered reasonable for him to maintain his belief in materialism?

"I live most of my life based on deriving rules from the observable behavior of reality, but portions of reality that have not been explained to my satisfaction absolutely must be the work of the particular deity(ies) I have chosen to believe in."

Or, in the particular case of existence --
"I don't know, but my God absolutely and unquestionably did it through some supernatural means."
"I don't know, but odds are it happened through and because of the same processes we can observe today."

Obviously not likely to change your mind, but that's hopefully enough of my thought process to understand what I'm designating as "absolute faith". And to be precise: I deny you any claim of rationality or sensibility in asserting existence independent of observable reality, or in a particular choice of deity(ies).

Might you be right? Sure. At about the same level of likelihood as the Hindi, Egyptians, Norse, Romans, various native-American tribes, Scientologists, Matrix, Mormons, that the teaparty-dwarves borrowed my house keys this morning, or that gravity will suddenly cease to exist as I walk to work tomorrow. And because I'm not packing either a grappling hook or a tea cozy, I'm an atheist

-- And just out of equal opportunity bashing:
"I don't know, odds are it happened through the same processes we can observe today, but my God absolutely and unquestionably exists."
"I don't know, really, have no clue if reality even exists at all."

<edit>I'll probably bow out unless something really strikes my fancy. The review board says I'm either too disagreeable, too aggressive, or too inflammatory in these topics. Blame my discussion style on comp.lang.c -- in person I didn't even get blacklisted by the Jehovah's until after a few chats.</edit>

But we've already gone over this minsk ...

Materialism does make certain unprovable assertions.  Sometimes these assumptions are stated openly.  Usually, they remain implicit.  But they are no less real.  Thus, from my standpoint it is no less a jump into arbitrary faith for a materialist to cling to his atheism.

[ladyattis]

They're only unprovable if you don't accept axiomatic reasoning. Remember, everything we say, do, and think are based on one form of axiom or another.

For a good definition of an axiom, I give the following: "Axiom: a non-ordinal proposition, unproven until implied as necessary by any series of ordinal propositions."


-- Bridget